It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Bill to Defund Taxpayer Money for Abortion

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your are still okay with someone killing an innocent child.

Interesting.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: therationalist

Right, money doesn't grow on trees. So let's focus on the REAL money sinks then right?

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare


According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.
So what??? I am against all crimes whether a case of theft or a crime of murder...



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You do realize the topic of this thread is the defunding of such things.

So, your of the "because" camp. The tax payer needs to pay, if a woman can't pay for it herself. And this is because it is a drain on society to support another human.

WOW...You Progressives can't keep anything straight.

So, the tax payer should fund my vehicle, "because"....because I need one, and me paying for it is a drain.

And by using the logic of a "Mom of 3", if we just killed those that are a drain, we wouldn't need food stamps.

Eugenics is the name of the game. And you are one that aligns with it very closely.

I guess, that if YOUR children are/were a drain, you would have no problem removing them from the earth then.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Now you have moved on to the evil rich. Good hell. Do you have a script you read and retort from??

Here is something. If a poor person can't afford something, then they don't get it.

Can't afford a kid...don't have sex.

Can't afford an abortion....then you don't get one funded via taxes.

I am sure that there is some Progressive based group/program that is MORE then willing to fund the killing of children in this manner. Maybe write Soros. I am sure he is down to help with this.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

SO then the argument of the thread would be that there is currently no funding.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Which tax funded program pays for abortions? I can't find it.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Uhhh funding what you want is legislating morality. It just happens to be your flavor.

The Govt should not be funding any of the things mentioned in this thread.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your are still okay with someone killing an innocent child.

Interesting.


Well for one, I don't see it as an innocent child. I see it as a group of cells that has the potential to become a child. Though nice try with your appeal to emotion fallacy.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Defund what? Which program pays for abortions?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: therationalist

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: therationalist

Right, money doesn't grow on trees. So let's focus on the REAL money sinks then right?

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare


According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.
So what??? I am against all crimes whether a case of theft or a crime of murder...


Abortion isn't a crime.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

And now we are at the issue with this thread.

My stance is there should be no tax payer funded anything. Abortion, medical needs, birth control, corporate welfare and so on.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess you don't believe in the soul of a person either.

Even more interesting.

And the whole "a person's potential" goes out the window even for those that escaped the womb. Because after all, we ALL are just a group of cells.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Sounds like a muslim country.

So, they are defunding something that does not exist?
edit on 28-1-2015 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: therationalist

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: therationalist

Right, money doesn't grow on trees. So let's focus on the REAL money sinks then right?

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare


According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.
So what??? I am against all crimes whether a case of theft or a crime of murder...


Abortion isn't a crime.
can't understand analogies..eh???



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: therationalist

Right, money doesn't grow on trees. So let's focus on the REAL money sinks then right?

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare


According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.


hey, hey, hey.....let's not let facts get in the way of attacks on the poor....those corporations are probably homeless, and needy



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Forced" or allowed to come to term? I guess it depends on ones viewpoint on the issue, mom's or the fetus/baby's...


Three years after having me, my mother attempted an abortion on my sister. (I can't really blame mom for that one having put up with me for those three years...
). For which my sister is grateful it failed...


I do believe you've hit on a key point, to wit, the expense to states supporting welfare babies. Food, medical expenses, on and on.

If the numbers are correct, there have been over 56 million abortions since the passing of Roe vs Wade.

Compared to that number, our war dead looks like a case of a bad flu season.

Life vs "expense'. It's already in our system. I will be 65 this year. At age 67, apparently Medicare ceases giving expensive treatments/surgeries automatically. Each individual is weighed based on life expectancy vs cost. If it doesn't match their criteria-which we don't know or have a say in- then that service is denied....

Life vs expense/convenience: this one will not go away as an issue.

It shouldn't !!

Slippery slopes exist on both sides and needs constant vigilance from we, the people...



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jimmyx

SO then the argument of the thread would be that there is currently no funding.



there is no government taxpayer funding of abortion...which has been your argument for the whole thread....



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
Hey, hey,don't let logic come in the way of emotional fallacies.
Let me get this straight, I am against both corporate welfare and making others pay for the irresponsible actions of someone however poor that someone is and whatever the amount being given in so called welfare....



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: Annee
Government doesn't grow money on trees for your information.......
No one is stopping you from practicing your version of morality, just fill your moral bills with your own money.....thanks....


The U.S. Government IS going to subsidize unwanted and neglected children.

Your tax dollar.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: jimmyx
Hey, hey,don't let logic come in the way of emotional fallacies.
Let me get this straight, I am against both corporate welfare and making others pay for the irresponsible actions of someone however poor that someone is and whatever the amount being given in so called welfare....


who determines what are "irresponsible actions"?.....you?....the clergy?...republicans?...the tea party?....the courts?...those who are wealthy?




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join